Barriers to critical thinking

1. ThinkingCritically,Chapter One

2.  We often draw conclusions based on wholly
inaccurate information. Often, we are unaware
that the reasons we give in favor of a conclusion
or belief are themselves suspect.
 We often draw conclusions based on true
information, while neglecting context or
conflicting information that significantly
changes the meaning or force of the original
information.
 Often we rely on information that is irrelevant
to the conclusions we draw.

3.  Garbage In, Garbage Out: Some serious
errors in recent history involve the use of
false information:
 The mistaken claim that Saddam Hussein’s
regime in Iraq possessed WMDs (as a primary
reason to invade Iraq)
 The mistaken claim that childhood inoculations
were a cause of autism (as a reason to resist the
vaccination of children against dangerous
childhood illness)

4.  Sometimes even true and verifiable
information can, if incomplete or stripped of
context, lead to hasty or false conclusions.
 Consider the following brief clip regarding the
firing of Shirley Sherrod at the USDA. In what
sense is the information used in this decision true,
and yet misleading? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38321920
 NAACPTea Party resolution: https://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-delegates-vote-
to-repudiate-racist-elements-within-the-tea-pary/
 MSNBC Interview with Breitbart: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38321920#.VXXqUtJViko
 Are Breitbart’s claims, namely that the NAACP is hypocritical in condemning racist
behavior in theTea Party, relevant and accurate here?

5.  Example, Confirmation Bias: “In psychology
and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or
confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for
or interpret information in a way that
confirms one's preconceptions, leading to
statistical errors.” –from Science Daily

6.  It is often the case that we take some
information as decisive in forming a belief or
conclusion, when in fact the information has no
bearing on the issue at hand.
 Fallacies of relevance: (see ch. 5)
▪ Personal Attacks
▪ ScareTactics
 During the 80’s, when the AIDS epidemic was at the
forefront of the media, many wished to exploit the
sexual orientation or drug abuse of many victims of
this terrible illness as justification for limiting public
health response to the disease.

7.  Superiority bias occurs when a person has a
hyperbolic or inflated self-image. Sometimes
this occurs when a person believes that their
success in one area or field implies that their
views on other, unrelated matters, deserves
respect as well.
 EXAMPLE: Max is a widely respected CEO and
entrepreneur. He has created and led a number of
highly successful businesses. Hence, he reasons,
his views on economics, politics, morality and
other such matters deserve special attention.

8.  The superiority bias occurs when a person has a hyperbolic
or inflated self-image. Sometimes this occurs when a
person refuses to revise their self-image even when
presented with reliable evidence that their self-image is
distorted.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJpHM9LL6Qc&featur
e=related
 A similar obstacle to critical thinking is an exaggerated
sense of self-loathing or an unreasonable negative self-
image (or inferiority bias) that is not reflective of objective
evidence to the contrary.

9.  When a person grants undue weight or
priority to their own interests to the expense
of others interest, they are guilty of self-
interested thinking. Generally, self-interested
thinking involves a belief that is held primarily
on the basis of selective and biased evidence
that ignores reasons that conflict with a
person’s perceived self-interest.

10.  EXAMPLE: Sandy placed a bet on theWarriors. If the
Warriors beat the spread (7 pts) then she stood to win $500.
In the fourth quarter, theWarriors had the ball with six
seconds left in the game.TheWarriors were up by 6 points.
Stephen Curry had the ball, drove the lane, running directly
into the defensive player as he laid the ball in the hoop.The
referee called a charging foul, thus cancelling the two points
and ending the game with theWarriors up by 6. Sandy
protested that it was obviously a bad call.
 Though it is possible that the call was not accurate and
fair, it is probable that Sandy’s perspective is biased by her
desire to have won the bet.

11.  EXAMPLE:Will has a portfolio of stock
investments in several Fortune 500 companies. If
the proposed bill in the legislature passes, raising
taxes on capital gains,Will stands to lose several
thousands of dollars each year.Will opposes the
bill, claiming it will harm job growth.
 Though it is possible thatWill has the relevant
expertise to judge whether the tax bill will have a
negative effect on job growth, it is likely that his
perspective is biased by his personal interest in
the bill being defeated.

12.  Group bias occurs when one considers their
own group to be inherently better than
others. Generally, this is demonstrated by the
biased application of principles to the
assessment of similar or even identical
behaviors or beliefs of groups other than our
own. Common forms of group bias include
Xenophobia, Racism, Sexism, Classism, and
Nationalism.

13.  The biggest problem every military in history has faced
is persuading both civilian populations and soldiers to
do something they are naturally reluctant to do, i.e.
killing other human beings. One of the best known ways
to overcome this obstacle is to dehumanize the enemy
with disparaging epithet and degrading
characterizations or stereotypes. Once the “enemy”
populations are seen to be, not human, but instead
“gooks,” “nips,” “krauts,” “rag heads,” “godless
communists” etc., that don’t value life like “we” do,
actions that were otherwise unthinkable become
possible. (Paraphrase from Capt. Paul Chappell)

14.  Is racial profiling as bad as some say?
Consider the issues raised in this brief film:
http://www.upworthy.com/know-anyone-that-thinks-racial-profiling-is-
exaggerated-watch-this-and-tell-me-when-your-jaw-drops-2?c=bl3
 Are “sexual violence” or “gender violence”
best understood as “women’s issues?”
Consider the issues raised in this brief film:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_
a_men_s_issue.html

15.  Example:What the Nazis did to Jews in Europe,
the Hutus did toTutsis in Rwanda, and what
theTurks did to Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire was clearly genocide. American
pioneers, assisted by Federal policy and the
U.S. military, on the contrary, engaged in
western expansion and manifest destiny.They
helped tame the wilderness so that progress
could proceed.

16.  Conformism is our tendency to follow the
crowd and accede to conventional authority
 Milgram
 Asche
▪ Mi Lai and Abu Ghraib
▪ Consumerism and mimetic desire
▪ Economic Bubbles
▪ Fads, peer pressure, etc.
▪ Bystander Effect
▪ Stanford Prison Experiment: http://www.prisonexp.org/

17.  A logical inconsistency occurs when a person
holds beliefs that are contradictory. Logical
inconsistencies pose a problem for the
pursuit of truth, since at least one of the
competing claims must be false.

18.  Often, a logical inconsistency occurs when a person (perhaps
unknowingly) applies some basic principle or belief
differently in considering distinct issues:
 EXAMPLE: Abortion is wrong. A fetus is a human life and
human life is sacred and should never be intentionally
destroyed.
 EXAMPLE:The death penalty is the only appropriate
punishment for murder.Those who kill innocent human beings
must pay the ultimate price for their crimes.
 Belief 1: It is always wrong to intentionally destroy human
life.
 Belief 2: It is sometimes right to intentionally destroy human
life.

19.  It is important to note that often, what
appears to constitute a logical inconsistency
can be considerably mitigated or even
eliminated by the inclusion of a qualifier. For
example:
 Belief 3: It is always wrong to intentionally
destroy innocent human life.

20.  Sometimes a logical inconsistency occurs as a
result of a self-referential inconsistency,
where a specific claim leads to contradictory
beliefs:
 EXAMPLE: “This statement is false.”
 EXAMPLE: “All truth is relative.”

21.  Sometimes two beliefs are not obviously in
conflict, but when considered more carefully
they present potential issues of inconsistency:
 Every event in nature is the necessary result of a
preceding cause.
 Human beings are morally responsible for their
behavior.
 God is omniscient.
 Human beings are morally responsible for their
behavior.

22.  A practical inconsistency occurs when a
person behaves in a manner that contradicts
what they purport to believe.Though
practical inconsistency is a serious problem
for the character and integrity of a person, it
is generally not a relevant consideration
when addressing the truth value of
expressed beliefs.

23.  EXAMPLE: ReverendTed Haggard, a prominent
evangelical pastor and vocal opponent of gay rights and
homosexual behavior was recently exposed as having
maintained a sexual relationship with a male prostitute.
 EXAMPLE:Senator John Edwards has long represented
himself as a champion of the underprivileged in the war
on poverty.Yet he served as a high paid consultant to
Fortress Investment Group which owned a major stake
in GreenTree Servicing LLC, which rose to prominence in
the 1990s selling subprime loans to mobile-home
owners and now services subprime loans.

24.  Following the shooting of Arizona representative Gabrielle
Giffords, some in the media criticized Sara Palin for her
rhetoric, including a controversial map that placed
crosshairs over swing districts (including Giffords’).The
charge was that inflammatory rhetoric, specifically the use
of military metaphor, contributed to acts of violence
against political figures. “Acts of monstrous criminality
stand on their own,” Ms. Palin said in a seven-and-a-half
minute video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially
within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits
should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to
incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to
condemn.That is reprehensible.”
 From: NYT, January 12, 2011, 8:15 am “Palin Calls Criticism ‘Blood Libel’”, By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

25.  Claim One: Political rhetoric in the media does
not incite hatred and violence and speakers (i.e.
Palin) are not responsible for crimes committed as
a result.
 ClaimTwo: Political rhetoric in the media does
incite hatred and violence and speakers (i.e.
journalists critical of Palin) are responsible for any
crimes committed as a result.

26.  “Be Aware” of Assumptions vs. “Beware”
of Assumptions
 Critical thinkers strive to make their
assumptions explicit to themselves and
those they hope to persuade.We should
acknowledge our assumptions and actively
expose them to rigorous critique.

27.  EXAMPLE:We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

28.  When assumptions are hidden from
ourselves and others, we often end
up tacitly accepting claims that, if
made explicit, we would likely
reject.

29.  EXAMPLE: Look, if we can’t trust
international law to convict terrorists,
who don’t deserve the protection of our
Constitution or Bill of Rights anyway, why
shouldn’t they be tried in secret by the
U.S. Military?

30.  We are able to effectively determine that the
suspects in question are terrorists prior to any
trial.
 At least where terrorism is concerned, it is
appropriate to hold some individuals guilty
until proven innocent.

31.  Often, assumptions provide a logical bridge
of support between one claim and another.
These assumptions play an inferential role in a
line of reasoning. Generally, this is not a
problem, so long as the unstated claim is not
intentionally obscured and the assumption
does not pertain to some legitimately
controversial subject.

32.  EXAMPLE: God has every virtue. So God must
be benevolent.
 Assumption: “Benevolence is a virtue.”
 EXAMPLE: All mammals possess mammary
glands. Hence, blue whales possess mammary
glands.
 Assumption: “Blue whales are mammals.”

33.  However, sometimes the assumption
(inferential or otherwise) is one that, if
accepted, would imply claims that are
logically inconsistent, contradict known
facts, or otherwise clearly unacceptable.

34.  EXAMPLE: No one can definitively prove that
“God does not exist.” So, it is reasonable to
suppose that God does exist.
 EXAMPLE: No one can definitively prove that
“God does exist.” So, it is reasonable to suppose
that God does not exist.
 ASSUMPTION: “When there is insufficient
evidence to prove a claim is true, it is reasonable
to accept that the claim is false.”

35.  When assessing the views of others, never attribute a more
extreme assumption to a speaker when a more moderate
assumption would be sufficient.
 “War is wrong because it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent
human beings.”
1. All people killed in war are innocent.
2. It is never morally permissible to intentionally kill human
beings.
3. All those who participate in war are immoral.
4. One should never engage in war.
5. In every war, at least some innocent human beings are
intentionally killed.

36.  When our primary reason for believing
something is simply that we would
prefer it be true, we are guilty of wishful
thinking.

37.  EXAMPLE: Many support the right of government to
employ methods of broad and indiscriminate
surveillance on the grounds that, “I have nothing to
hide.” Surely, they suppose, anyone who is innocent of
wrongdoing will not be harmed (at least not too much)
by minor intrusions into their private lives.
 EXAMPLE: A random survey of 10,000 high school age
girls revealed that a significant number of them
believed it was impossible to become pregnant in their
first sexual encounter.When asked to explain, most
reported that to believe otherwise was just too
frightening a prospect.

38.  Relativism is a theory about the nature of truth.
This theory holds that…
 There is no such thing as “objective” truth, only
opinions which differ from person to person or society
to society.
 No opinion is objectively superior to, or inferior to,
any other opinion.
 All opinions are equally “true” relative to the speaker.
 Relativism is a serious Obstacle to Critical
Thinking and should be avoided.

39.  Clearly, there are appropriate and rational
grounds for employing the concept of
relativity in the pursuit of truth.
 EXAMPLES:Whether an object is to one’s left or
right is relative to ones position.
 EXAMPLE:We can often better understand and
empathize with others when we grasp and respect
the importance of contingent perspectives.

40.  Often it is claimed that a particular belief is “just an opinion.”This is to distinguish
such a belief from “facts.” But, what exactly is the difference between opinions
and facts?
 The term “opinion” is often used rhetorically to imply that the expressed belief is not yet
established as a cultural norm or accepted statement in the relevant field of expertise or that
the topic on which the belief is held is sufficiently complex as to prevent general consensus.
 The term “fact” is often used rhetorically to imply that the belief in question is well
established in the community and, so, not in need of explicit defense.
 Hence, our question is not whether a statement of belief is a “fact” or an “opinion” but
whether the statement is sufficiently supported by relevant reasons. In this sense, many facts
are not broadly agreed to, and many opinions are very well established by reasons and so
should not hold the negative connotation that the term “opinion” generally entails.
▪ In specific disciplines, the term “fact” is generally reserved for those statements regarding “what is the
case” that are non-controversial among relevant experts.
▪ In dialogical settings, the term “fact” is generally reserved for those statements that are readily
conceded to by the parties of the discussion.
▪ In science, the term “fact” is generally an statement supported by verifiable empirical data and is often
contrasted with “theory” which is intended to a conceptual framework for explaining a set of facts or
concepts.
▪ In philosophy, it is sometimes emphasized that there is an exclusive distinction between “facts” and
“values.” But in some cases, the notion of “moral facts” is employed.
▪ In philosophy, the terms “fact” and “value” are used to indicate distinct kinds of issues or statements
that require distinct kinds of support or evidence to settle disputes as to what is “true.”

41.  An Issue is a question on which reasonable
people disagree.
 Different types of issues call for different
kinds of evidence. Evidence or reasons
relevant to resolving one kind of issue are
often insufficient or even irrelevant to
resolving a different kind of issue.
 Often, problems are multifaceted, and
involved several different types of issues.

42.  Factual Issues: Questions pertaining to
“what is the case” are factual issues.These
are questions that are generally resolved
through the empirical method (i.e. through
verifiable observation or reference to reliable
documentation derived therefrom).
 What is the cause of global climate change?
 Who won the first World Series?
 What constitutes a healthy diet?

43.  Interpretive: Questions pertaining to
meaning are interpretive in nature. Generally,
these questions address issues of vague or
unclear language and call for a definition
and/or assessment of the context in which
the terms and/or concepts are employed.
 What is the meaning of “person”?
 What is the meaning of “justice”?
 What does it mean to say something “works”?

44.  Evaluative: Questions that address the worth or value
of things are evaluative issues.These issues generally
address questions of morality/ethics or
beauty/aesthetics.Though relativism may be asserted
in any issue, most proponents of relativism are
concerned primarily with evaluative issues.
 Moral issues include questions such as:
▪ Is it wrong to deny same-sex couples equal access to civic marriage?
▪ Is it okay to cheat on your algebra exam?
 Aesthetic issues include questions such as:
▪ Is Beethoven's 9th Symphony a more important musical composition
than Britney Spear’s Oops!...I Did it Again?
▪ Is my daughter’s Playdough sculpture of Sponge Bob more
beautiful than Rodin’s sculpture TheThinker?

45.  A complex issue is one that entails more than one
distinct question. Often, resolving the main issue
being addressed requires that underlying issues be
resolved first. Most of the major issues we face are
complex:
 Consider the moral evaluative issue, Should abortion be
legal? This issue is difficult to resolve without first
addressing…
▪ Interpretive questions such as “what is abortion?” and “what is a
person?”
▪ Factual questions such as “when does a fetus acquire the
physiological or psychological features of personhood?” or “what
effects would outlawing abortion have on public health?”
▪ Evaluative questions such as “are the rights of fetuses to life more
important than the right of a woman to self-determination?”

46. Simple Subjectivism: Meaning and Moral Claims
“X is morally acceptable”
“X is right” All mean:
“X is good” “I (speaker)
“X ought to be done” approve of X”
“X is morally unacceptable”
“X is wrong” All mean:
“X is bad” “I (speaker)
“X ought not to be done” disapprove of X

47. Rational Belief Argument:
1. If subjectivism is correct, then changing your moral
beliefs could never be rationally justified.
2. Nearly everyone has, at some time, changed their
belief on some moral matter for some identifiable
reason.
3. Therefore, no one who accepts that a change in
moral belief is reasonable can consistently
maintain a subjectivist position.

48. Does Subjectivism Make Rational Sense?
Step One: Consider the claim, “capital punishment
is unjust,” and then translate this claim in terms
of Simple Subjectivism
Step One: Capital punishment is unjust. = “I (the
speaker) approve of capital punishment.”

49. StepTwo: Suppose the author of the above claim was to change their mind and
accept instead that, “capital punishment is just.” What could explain this change
of heart? What implications follow from adopting the simple subjectivist view?
How are these implications problematic for this theory?
StepTwo: If one were to rationally explain the change, one would have to identify
some reason for the change. But this would imply that the author believes that
there is a reason to suggest that their prior belief was false. If so, then even for
the subjectivist, a change of heart implies a belief that some ethical positions are
more reasonable, hence better, than others. Thus, one cannot both believe that
simple subjectivism is true, i.e. that no one’s moral opinions are better than
others, and at the same time believe that their present beliefs are any better than
those they have chosen to abandon.
Since virtually everyone does, at some point, abandon their moral beliefs in favor of
what they deem to be better beliefs, Simple Subjectivism cannot be consistently
adhered to.

50.  StepThree: Suppose person X believes that,
“capital punishment is unjust,” and personY
believes that, “capital punishment is just.”
Now, suppose Person X is a simple
subjectivist. On what grounds could person X
attempt to persuade personY to change their
view? Does this question even make sense in
the logic of simple subjectivism? What
difficulty does this pose for the theory of
simple subjectivism?

51. StepThree: In order to influence the opinion of PersonY,
Person X must presume that some reason could be
accepted as grounds for changing their opinion. But no
such reason would be relevant to such a change if the
opinion held was a personal fact about ones tastes or
attitudes. For example, what sort of reason would cause
someone to abandon their belief that, e.g. “Caviar is
tasty?” Or, if we prefer to treat the expression of a moral
belief as a report of the attitudes of the speaker, what sort
of reason could be sufficient to convince a listener that
they in fact did not hold the attitude they report?
Simple subjectivism assumes that everyone is infallible in
their moral choices.

52. RelevanceArgument:
1. If subjectivism is correct, then no moral opinion can be objectively
more rational or better informed than any other moral opinion.
2. This would mean that opinions based on irrelevant reasons are
equally rational as beliefs based on relevant reasons. (e.g. “Stealing
is wrong because it harms people’s interests,” and “Stealing is wrong
because oysters live in saltwater,” are equally rational positions)
3. This would mean also that opinions based on false reasons are
equally rational as beliefs based on true reasons. (e.g. “Torturing
babies is wrong because babies suffer,” and “torturing babies is okay
because babies feel no pain,” are equally rational positions.)
4. Premises 2 and 3 above are untenable.
5. So, Subjectivism is not a rational position.

53. Infallibility Argument:
1. If subjectivism is correct, then each of us is
infallible in our moral judgments, at least so
long as we are speaking sincerely.
2. However, we are not infallible, i.e. we may be
mistaken, even when we are speaking
sincerely.
3. Therefore, Subjectivism cannot be correct.

54. Disagreement Argument:
1. When one person says “X is morally
acceptable” and someone else says “X is
morally unacceptable,” they are disagreeing.
2. However, if subjectivism were correct, there
would be no disagreement between them.
3. Therefore, Subjectivism cannot be correct.

55. The Argument Against Objective Ethics:
1. If there were any such thing as objective truth
in ethics, we should be able to prove that some
moral opinions are true and others are false.
2. But in fact we cannot prove which moral
opinions are true and which are false.
3. Therefore, there is no such thing as objective
truth in ethics.

56. Some Options in response to the Argument Against
Objective Ethics:
1. There are moral facts, in the same way that there are
facts about the stars and planets.
2. Our values are nothing more than the expression of
our subjective feelings. (Subjectivism)
3. Moral truths are truths of reason; that is, a moral
judgment is true if it is backed by better reasons
than the alternatives.

57.  Dr. Smith is irresponsible: He bases his diagnoses
on superficial considerations; he drinks before
performing delicate surgery; he refuses to listen
to other doctor’s advice; and so on.
 That used-car dealer is unethical: She conceals
defects in her cars; she takes advantage of poor
people by pressuring them into paying
exorbitant prices for cars she knows to be
defective; she runs misleading ads in any
newspaper that will carry them; and so on.

58. Descriptive (sociological) relativism:
 Claims as a matter of fact that different
cultures have different moral values.
Ethical Cultural relativism:
 Claims that each culture is right unto itself.

59.  It is difficult to ascertain a culture’s shared
believes though observation.
 Different behaviors may exemplify the same
values.
 The same behavior may exemplify different
values in different cultures.
 Apparent differences in values may result from
differences of fact.
 Core values: Are there central values found in all
cultures?

60.  Descriptive relativists say that moral values are
relative, but to what:
 Culture (raises the problem of defining “culture”)
 Physical Geography
 Nation or State
 Social Group (e.g. religion, class, ethnicity, profession…)
 Individual (i.e. subjectivism)
 The Problem: How do we individuate cultures and
identify members? (The problem of marginalized or
minority groups, bi-cultural and multi-cultural
identity…) How do we account for Pluralist society?

61. The Argument For Cultural Relativism: The
“Cultural Differences Argument”
 Different cultures have different moral codes
(descriptive relativism)
 Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in
morality. Right and wrong are only matters
of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to
culture.

62. 1. Different societies have different moral codes (descriptive assumption)
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code
better than another.
3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one
among many.
4. There is no “universal truth” in ethics; that is there are no moral truths that
hold for all people at all times.
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society;
that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then
that action is right, at least within that society.
6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We
should attempt to adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of
other cultures.

63. AreThere UniversalValues?
Argument for the Universal status of Caring for young:
1. Human infants are helpless and cannot survive if they are
not given extensive care for a period of years.
2. Therefore, if a group did not care for its young, the young
would not survive, and the older members of the group
would not be replaced. After a while the group would die
out.
3. Therefore, any cultural group that continues to exist must
value caring for its young. Infants that are not cared for
must be the exception rather than the rule.

64. 1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are inferior (nor superior) to our
own.
2. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong by consulting the standards of our society.
(Relativism shares this characteristic with sociocentric absolutism.)
3. The idea of moral progress is deemed impossible.
4. The possibility of a pluralist society is undermined. Ethical relativism suggests that we let each
culture live as it sees fit.This is only feasible when cultures don’t have to interact with one
another.Thus, it is unhelpful in dealing with overlaps of cultures - precisely where resolution of
conflict is most urgently needed.
5. The standard of moral proof becomes “might makes right.” Only the dominant culture may
successfully determine moral truth. Morality, in this case, is determined by the ability to
maintain political power.
6. Commerce and trade (e.g. within Multinational corporations) that employs controversial
methods such as sweat shops, slave labor, race and gender discrimination, or environmental
destruction could not be morally criticized.

65.  Though relativism as a theory of truth is an obstacle
to critical thinking, we can, nonetheless, discern
some lessons in studying relativism.
 The need for tolerance and understanding.
 The fact of moral diversity.
 We should not pass judgment on practices in other
cultures when we don’t understand them .
 Sometimes reasonable people may differ on what’s
morally acceptable.
 Rejecting a practice should not imply condemning a
society.
 Many practices are merely preferential, not moral.

66.  Here are some links to articles on Relativism:
 Why Our Children Don’tThinkThereAre Moral Facts:
file:///C:/Users/smartin/Downloads/Why%20Our%20C
hildren%20Don.pdf
 Subjectivism in Ethics:
file:///C:/Users/smartin/Downloads/Subjectivism%20i
n%20Ethics.pdf
 The Challenge of Cultural Relativism:
file:///C:/Users/smartin/Downloads/Cultural%20Relati
vism%20in%20Ethics.pdf